[1], Humphreys does not make any claim about whether the center of the universe is in the solar system, but says it is "near" the Milky Way Galaxy.

He argues that the center of universe is within 100,000 light years, which is the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy. He doesn't argue that it's closer than that. Interestingly, he makes an argument that the probability of that happening by chance (that is, without God's intervention) is less than 1 in a trillion. Using that same reasoning, the probability of the center of the universe, having been located within the Milky Way Galaxy, is actually inside the solar system (more specifically, inside the orbit of Neptune), is 1 in a septillion (trillion trillion). He makes no claim that God caused that to happen.

He then makes a completely unsupported and ad hominem attack on the motives of people proposing the "big bang" cosmology, saying "Thus, Christians who support the big bang theory should realize that they are unwittingly denying their God and compromising with a godless worldview."

Humphreys' writings have been widely refuted, not just by "secular" scientists, but by Evangelical Christians, as here, who ask him to stop distracting people:

Dr. Humphreys, I am praying that you will turn your attention fully toward reaching the lost with the Gospel of Christ and cease making the age of the universe a big issue between us and between you and unbelievers. The time is too short, and the Lord has called us to use it wisely.

and pointing out that both James Dobson and Paul Crouch have asked to be removed from the controversy.

In his 2007 paper [2] he now claims that the center of the universe is inside the solar system. But his equation (9) is just the Schwarzschild metric, which he claims is correct for anything within a radius of "R", which he sets to 13.8 billion light years. Since we are inside that region, his "waters above the expanse" phenomenon has no effect. In fact, his equation (3a) says as much. He then claims that "faster radar pulses cause the Pioneer effect", even though

The effects, on time dilation, of General Relativity and the Schwarzschild metric are well known.

Those effects are 1/1000th as large as the Pioneer anomaly.

He fails to explain how these phenomena would affect only the telemetry data for the Pioneer spacecraft but not other bodies, such as planets, that have also been measured with exquisite accuracy.

Thermal Recoil - Not an anomaly

The following paper explains that the anomalous measurements can be completely accounted for when thermal recoil pressure is taken into consideration. Then, there is no statistically significant deviation. I think I will make it my mission to solve an anomaly a day relating to the relativity article. It is no way incompatible with religion, and therefore there is no need to attempt to discredit a flawless model of our universe that has passed every test ever thrown at it. For those still a bit confused, this has nothing to do with moral relativism, and I sincerely doubt that Jesus would mind if you acknowledge that mass can distort space-time. I mean, hey, he's the one that made it that way!?

Stop fraudulently discrediting established theories due to ill-conceived moral or political implications that are ultimately not relevant one little bit. Hearing lay people discuss physics and biology on this christianopedia is a little bit like a scientist discussing Malachi 3:6-7 and the immutability of God. That, I imagine, would be incredibly frustrating for theologists. Well, that's how I feel when right wing borderline fascist lay persons attempt to disprove relativity (or evolution) through a poor use of semantics and a complete lack of genuine evidence.

Next time: Gravity waves. Yes, these haven't been observed - but that is NOT a counter example. A counter example would have to provide evidence that they don't exist. The lack of a Higgs boson until last week was NOT evidence that the standard model of particle physics was wrong - by analogy, just because no gravity waves have been found doesn't say anything about whether they exist or whether we'll find them. They are exceedingly weak and so will be rather difficult to detect.

I lost my keys last week. I've looked for them, but I can't find them. Is this a counter example to the theory of "my keys exist"? No, it isn't. I would have to find the molten remains of a keyring. That would then provide evidence for my keys not existing. Not finding them simply means I haven't looked hard enough. LucoDaw 22:38, 9 July 2012 (EDT)